[PATCH] testsuite: Introduce be/le selectors

[PATCH] testsuite: Introduce be/le selectors

[Segher Boessenkool]

This patch creates "be" and "le" selectors, which can be used by all
architectures, similar to ilp32 and lp64.

Is this okay for trunk?


Segher


2017-05-21  Segher Boessenkool  <segher@kernel.crashing.org>

gcc/testsuite/
	* lib/target-supports.exp (check_effective_target_be): New.
	(check_effective_target_le): New.

---
 gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp | 16 ++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+)

diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp b/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp
index cfc22a2..3b9460d 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp
@@ -2641,6 +2641,22 @@ proc check_effective_target_long_neq_int { } {
     }]
 }
 
+# Return 1 if we're generating big-endian code.
+
+proc check_effective_target_be { } {
+    return [check_no_compiler_messages be object {
+	int dummy[__BYTE_ORDER__ == __ORDER_BIG_ENDIAN__ ? 1 : -1];
+    }]
+}
+
+# Return 1 if we're generating little-endian code.
+
+proc check_effective_target_le { } {
+    return [check_no_compiler_messages le object {
+	int dummy[__BYTE_ORDER__ == __ORDER_LITTLE_ENDIAN__ ? 1 : -1];
+    }]
+}
+
 # Return 1 if the target supports long double larger than double,
 # 0 otherwise.
 
-- 
1.8.3.1

Re: [PATCH] testsuite: Introduce be/le selectors

[Rainer Orth]

Hi Segher,

> This patch creates "be" and "le" selectors, which can be used by all
> architectures, similar to ilp32 and lp64.
>
> Is this okay for trunk?

two issues: I don't find be and le particularly expressive.  Maybe
big-endian and little-endian?

Besides, whatever we do, the new keywords need documenting in
sourcebuild.texi.

	Rainer

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rainer Orth, Center for Biotechnology, Bielefeld University

Re: [PATCH] testsuite: Introduce be/le selectors

[Segher Boessenkool]

On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 11:59:43PM +0200, Rainer Orth wrote:
> Hi Segher,
> 
> > This patch creates "be" and "le" selectors, which can be used by all
> > architectures, similar to ilp32 and lp64.
> >
> > Is this okay for trunk?
> 
> two issues: I don't find be and le particularly expressive.  Maybe
> big-endian and little-endian?

But they will be used a _lot_, at least for rs6000, in places where space
is it a premium.  Like in scan-assembler-times and the like.

> Besides, whatever we do, the new keywords need documenting in
> sourcebuild.texi.

Ah yes, I forgot.  Thanks.


Segher

Re: [PATCH] testsuite: Introduce be/le selectors

[Jeff Law]

On 05/21/2018 03:46 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> This patch creates "be" and "le" selectors, which can be used by all
> architectures, similar to ilp32 and lp64.
> 
> Is this okay for trunk?
> 
> 
> Segher
> 
> 
> 2017-05-21  Segher Boessenkool  <segher@kernel.crashing.org>
> 
> gcc/testsuite/
> 	* lib/target-supports.exp (check_effective_target_be): New.
> 	(check_effective_target_le): New.
I think this is fine.  "be" "le" are used all over the place in gcc and
the kernel to denote big/little endian.

jeff

Re: [PATCH] testsuite: Introduce be/le selectors

[Richard Earnshaw (lists)]

On 22/05/18 22:21, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 05/21/2018 03:46 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>> This patch creates "be" and "le" selectors, which can be used by all
>> architectures, similar to ilp32 and lp64.
>>
>> Is this okay for trunk?
>>
>>
>> Segher
>>
>>
>> 2017-05-21  Segher Boessenkool  <segher@kernel.crashing.org>
>>
>> gcc/testsuite/
>> 	* lib/target-supports.exp (check_effective_target_be): New.
>> 	(check_effective_target_le): New.
> I think this is fine.  "be" "le" are used all over the place in gcc and
> the kernel to denote big/little endian.

except when el and eb are used for perversity... :-)

R.

> 
> jeff
> 

Re: [PATCH] testsuite: Introduce be/le selectors

[Segher Boessenkool]

On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 03:21:30PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 05/21/2018 03:46 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > This patch creates "be" and "le" selectors, which can be used by all
> > architectures, similar to ilp32 and lp64.
>
> I think this is fine.  "be" "le" are used all over the place in gcc and
> the kernel to denote big/little endian.

Thanks.  This is what I checked in (to trunk):


2017-05-23  Segher Boessenkool  <segher@kernel.crashing.org>

	* doc/sourcebuild.texi (Endianness): New subsubsection.

gcc/testsuite/
	* lib/target-supports.exp (check_effective_target_be): New.
	(check_effective_target_le): New.


diff --git a/gcc/doc/sourcebuild.texi b/gcc/doc/sourcebuild.texi
index dfb0578..596007d 100644
--- a/gcc/doc/sourcebuild.texi
+++ b/gcc/doc/sourcebuild.texi
@@ -1313,6 +1313,16 @@ By convention, keywords ending in @code{_nocache} can also include options
 specified for the particular test in an earlier @code{dg-options} or
 @code{dg-add-options} directive.
 
+@subsubsection Endianness
+
+@table @code
+@item be
+Target uses big-endian memory order for multi-byte and multi-word data.
+
+@item le
+Target uses little-endian memory order for multi-byte and multi-word data.
+@end table
+
 @subsubsection Data type sizes
 
 @table @code
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp b/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp
index aa1296e6..0a53d7b 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp
@@ -2523,6 +2523,22 @@ proc check_effective_target_next_runtime { } {
     }]
 }
 
+# Return 1 if we're generating code for big-endian memory order.
+
+proc check_effective_target_be { } {
+    return [check_no_compiler_messages be object {
+	int dummy[__BYTE_ORDER__ == __ORDER_BIG_ENDIAN__ ? 1 : -1];
+    }]
+}
+
+# Return 1 if we're generating code for little-endian memory order.
+
+proc check_effective_target_le { } {
+    return [check_no_compiler_messages le object {
+	int dummy[__BYTE_ORDER__ == __ORDER_LITTLE_ENDIAN__ ? 1 : -1];
+    }]
+}
+
 # Return 1 if we're generating 32-bit code using default options, 0
 # otherwise.
 
-- 
1.8.3.1

Re: [PATCH] testsuite: Introduce be/le selectors

[Segher Boessenkool]

On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 10:07:18AM +0100, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
> On 22/05/18 22:21, Jeff Law wrote:
> > On 05/21/2018 03:46 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> >> This patch creates "be" and "le" selectors, which can be used by all
> >> architectures, similar to ilp32 and lp64.

> >> 2017-05-21  Segher Boessenkool  <segher@kernel.crashing.org>
> >>
> >> gcc/testsuite/
> >> 	* lib/target-supports.exp (check_effective_target_be): New.
> >> 	(check_effective_target_le): New.
> > I think this is fine.  "be" "le" are used all over the place in gcc and
> > the kernel to denote big/little endian.
> 
> except when el and eb are used for perversity... :-)

It should have been -BE and -EL, because that is what it means.  That
also avoids the -l/-L problem -le and -LE would have ;-)

(Confusing?  Yes, little-endian is confusing).


Segher

Re: [PATCH] testsuite: Introduce be/le selectors

[Richard Earnshaw (lists)]

On 24/05/18 18:28, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 10:07:18AM +0100, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
>> On 22/05/18 22:21, Jeff Law wrote:
>>> On 05/21/2018 03:46 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>>>> This patch creates "be" and "le" selectors, which can be used by all
>>>> architectures, similar to ilp32 and lp64.
> 
>>>> 2017-05-21  Segher Boessenkool  <segher@kernel.crashing.org>
>>>>
>>>> gcc/testsuite/
>>>> 	* lib/target-supports.exp (check_effective_target_be): New.
>>>> 	(check_effective_target_le): New.
>>> I think this is fine.  "be" "le" are used all over the place in gcc and
>>> the kernel to denote big/little endian.
>>
>> except when el and eb are used for perversity... :-)
> 
> It should have been -BE and -EL, because that is what it means.  That
> also avoids the -l/-L problem -le and -LE would have ;-)
> 
> (Confusing?  Yes, little-endian is confusing).

I beg to differ.  Big endian is the confusing one... :-)

R.

> 
> 
> Segher
> 

Re: [PATCH] testsuite: Introduce be/le selectors

[Segher Boessenkool]

On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 10:30:58AM +0100, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
> On 24/05/18 18:28, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 10:07:18AM +0100, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
> >> On 22/05/18 22:21, Jeff Law wrote:
> >>> On 05/21/2018 03:46 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> >>>> This patch creates "be" and "le" selectors, which can be used by all
> >>>> architectures, similar to ilp32 and lp64.
> > 
> >>>> 2017-05-21  Segher Boessenkool  <segher@kernel.crashing.org>
> >>>>
> >>>> gcc/testsuite/
> >>>> 	* lib/target-supports.exp (check_effective_target_be): New.
> >>>> 	(check_effective_target_le): New.
> >>> I think this is fine.  "be" "le" are used all over the place in gcc and
> >>> the kernel to denote big/little endian.
> >>
> >> except when el and eb are used for perversity... :-)
> > 
> > It should have been -BE and -EL, because that is what it means.  That
> > also avoids the -l/-L problem -le and -LE would have ;-)
> > 
> > (Confusing?  Yes, little-endian is confusing).
> 
> I beg to differ.  Big endian is the confusing one... :-)

I thought you said -EL is perverse.  Maybe I misunderstood!

(Sorry sorry).


Segher

[PATCH] Backport testsuite: Introduce be/le selectors

[Kelvin Nilsen]

Hi Jeff,

Is it ok to backport this patch to gcc 8?  There are other backports of test programs that would like to use the new selector options.

Thanks.


On 5/23/18 12:31 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 03:21:30PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
>> On 05/21/2018 03:46 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>>> This patch creates "be" and "le" selectors, which can be used by all
>>> architectures, similar to ilp32 and lp64.
>>
>> I think this is fine.  "be" "le" are used all over the place in gcc and
>> the kernel to denote big/little endian.
> 
> Thanks.  This is what I checked in (to trunk):
> 
> 
> 2017-05-23  Segher Boessenkool  <segher@kernel.crashing.org>
> 
> 	* doc/sourcebuild.texi (Endianness): New subsubsection.
> 
> gcc/testsuite/
> 	* lib/target-supports.exp (check_effective_target_be): New.
> 	(check_effective_target_le): New.
> 
> 
> diff --git a/gcc/doc/sourcebuild.texi b/gcc/doc/sourcebuild.texi
> index dfb0578..596007d 100644
> --- a/gcc/doc/sourcebuild.texi
> +++ b/gcc/doc/sourcebuild.texi
> @@ -1313,6 +1313,16 @@ By convention, keywords ending in @code{_nocache} can also include options
>  specified for the particular test in an earlier @code{dg-options} or
>  @code{dg-add-options} directive.
> 
> +@subsubsection Endianness
> +
> +@table @code
> +@item be
> +Target uses big-endian memory order for multi-byte and multi-word data.
> +
> +@item le
> +Target uses little-endian memory order for multi-byte and multi-word data.
> +@end table
> +
>  @subsubsection Data type sizes
> 
>  @table @code
> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp b/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp
> index aa1296e6..0a53d7b 100644
> --- a/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp
> @@ -2523,6 +2523,22 @@ proc check_effective_target_next_runtime { } {
>      }]
>  }
> 
> +# Return 1 if we're generating code for big-endian memory order.
> +
> +proc check_effective_target_be { } {
> +    return [check_no_compiler_messages be object {
> +	int dummy[__BYTE_ORDER__ == __ORDER_BIG_ENDIAN__ ? 1 : -1];
> +    }]
> +}
> +
> +# Return 1 if we're generating code for little-endian memory order.
> +
> +proc check_effective_target_le { } {
> +    return [check_no_compiler_messages le object {
> +	int dummy[__BYTE_ORDER__ == __ORDER_LITTLE_ENDIAN__ ? 1 : -1];
> +    }]
> +}
> +
>  # Return 1 if we're generating 32-bit code using default options, 0
>  # otherwise.
> 

Re: [PATCH] Backport testsuite: Introduce be/le selectors

[Jeff Law]

On 06/27/2018 10:01 AM, Kelvin Nilsen wrote:
> Hi Jeff,
> 
> Is it ok to backport this patch to gcc 8?  There are other backports of test programs that would like to use the new selector options.
Sure.
jeff